Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-11
review-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-11-opsdir-lc-fioccola-2025-04-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2025-04-09
Requested 2025-03-21
Requested by Carlos Pignataro
Authors Joseph A. Salowey , Sean Turner
I-D last updated 2025-04-11 (Latest revision 2025-04-11)
Completed reviews Secdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Benjamin M. Schwartz (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -11 by Barry Leiba (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -11 by Susan Hares (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Giuseppe Fioccola
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/i_t1EONCJ5qD5bCl7CutFRmFmoc
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 12)
Result Has nits
Completed 2025-04-03
review-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-11-opsdir-lc-fioccola-2025-04-03-00
This document updates the changes in RFC 8447 and requests IANA to make changes
to a number of TLS and DTLS registries. In particular, it updates the
"Recommended" column in TLS registries by defining a third value "D" for items
that are discouraged and adds a "Comment" column to the registries that do not
already have it. This document updates several RFCs: RFC 3749, RFC 5077, RFC
4680, RFC 5246, RFC 5705, RFC 5878, RFC 6520, RFC 7301, and RFC 8447.

I think that the document has a well defined scope and is quite clear. However,
I have few suggestions:

- In the Abstract, I suggest to replace 'adds a Comments column to all active
registries' with 'adds a Comment column to all the registries that do not
already have it'.

- In section 3, I suggest to replace 'The permitted values are' with 'The
permitted values of the Recommended column are', just to avoid any confusion.

- In the sections from 4 to 14, I suggest to add some explanation on why
specific registries are changed to discouraged. Some insight would help the
reader.

- I would also add some observations on the operational and interoperability
impacts, if any, of the changes proposed in the document.

- Currently, the section on "IANA Considerations" simply says that the document
is entirely about changes to TLS-related IANA registries, as per RFC 8447.
Instead, I would put all the relevant sections on IANA requests (i.e. sections
from 4 to 14) under an "IANA Considerations" section. In this way you can avoid
the IANA section with no content.